On Jan 18, 1:01*pm, Paul Moggach wrote:
When we get away from the $200 argument, and the basic freedoms, etc. *We
should get on to the real issues with radios.

The facts are that they are pretty useless in preventing any accidents
when they are used in the blind calling mode. *Further, even with directed
communications in controlled settings, they are often ineffective. *Humans
have great filters for getting rid of audio input that they aren't
interested in. *So unless you can unleash some pyrotechnics when you are
transmitting, their ineffectiveness in preventing accidents will remain.
The reason that Transponders, TCAS and FLARM devices etc. exist is a
direct result of the admission of how ineffective audio communications
are.

So are radios useful? *Sure, but not particularly for accident prevention.
*Will FLARM be useful? *Probably, in congested traffic areas, but likely
will not limit midairs while thermalling.

So I've seen some good arguments for radios about dealing with general
traffic in a directed fashion. *However when these are extended with some
notion that they will measurably contribute to safety, the evidence is not
good. *So making radios mandatory equipment or not is irrelevant to me from
a safety viewpoint.

The real questions are what might be effective, and in what environment?
Radios are ineffective everywhere. *Money aside, TCAS, and FLARM are much
better at getting your attention, and hold much more promise of affecting
safety than radios ever will.

Paul Moggach

Paul,

All good points.

They address JJ's concept that the Hawker collision could have been
somehow been prevented with a simple radio transmission.

So if we want to create an idiot proof world, based on government
regulation and advanced technology, we have a whole alphabet of stuff
available (or soon to be).

To add to your list, we have: Mode C, Mode S, PCAS, TIS, ADS-B.....

All viable solutions, to some degree..

Cookie